Before solc 0.4.22, constructor names had to be the same name as the contract class containing it.
Misnaming it wouldn’t make it a constructor which has security implications. Solc 0.4.22 introduced the constructor keyword. Until solc 0.5.0, contracts could have both old-style and new-style constructor names with the first defined one taking precedence over the second if both existed, which also led to security issues. Solc 0.5.0 forced the use of the constructor keyword. (see here and here)
- Constructor Names
< 0.4.22-> Contract Name -< 0.5.0-> or constructor>= 0.5.0-> Only constructor- Naming Confusion -> Bugs